Higham, and Elizabeth his Wife, against Ridgway
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 30 June 1808 |
| Date | 30 June 1808 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 103 E.R. 717
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
Dictum disapproved, Gleadow v. Atkin, 1833, 3 Tyrw. 302. See R v. Birmingham Overseers, 1861, 1 B. & S. 769; Smith v. Blakey, 1867, L. R. 2 Q. B. 332; R. v. Exeter, 1869, L. R. 4 Q. B. 345; In re Thomas, 1871, 25 L. T. 509; Sturla v. Freccia, 1880, 5 App. Cas. 640; Haines v. Guthrie, 1884, 13 Q. B. D. 829.
10 EAST, 109. HIGHAM V. RIDGWAY 717 [109] higham, and elizabeth his Wife, against ridgway. Thursday, June 30th, 1808. If a person have peculiar means of knowing a fact, and make a declaration or written entry of that fact, which is against his interest at the time, it is evidence of the fact as betwee'n third persons after his death, if he could have been examined to it in his life-time. And therefore an entry made by a man-midwife in a book, of having delivered a woman of a child on a certain day, referring to his ledger in which he had "made a charge for his attendance, which was marked as paid, is evidence upon an issue as to the age of such child at the time of his afterwards suffering a recovery. [Dictum disapproved, Gleadow v. Atkin, 1833, 3 Tyrw. 302. See E. v. Birmingham Overseers, 1861, 1 B. & S. 769; Smith v. BlaJcey, 1867, L. E. 2 Q. B. 332; R. v. Exeter, 186-9, L. E. 4 Q. B. 345; In re Thomas, 1871, 25 L. T. 509; Simla v. Freccia, 1880, 5 App. Gas. 640; Haines v. Guthrie, 1884, 13 Q. B. D. 829.] Upon error brought to reverse a recovery suffered by Wm. Fowden, the Younger, of certain lands in the County Palatine of Chester, of which he claimed to be first tenant in tail under indentures of the 16th and 17th of December, 1763, it appeared that the premises were limited in remainder to the first son of the body of Wm. Fowden, the father, in tail, with remainder to the second and other sons in tail, remainder to the daughters in tail: under which last limitation the plaintiff Elizabeth claimed, in default of heirs male of- Wm. Fowden the father, as heir of the body of Mary, his only daughter. The record set forth the recovery, which was of the session at Chester, on the 16th of April 29 Geo. 3, and appeared to have been acknowledged at Maccles-field on the 15th of April 1789, and that an affidavit was sworn on that day by Wm. Morley, Wm. Fowden Sen., and Mary the wife of John Orme, in which Wm. Fowden Sen. swore "that Wm. Fowden the Younger was born on the second of April 1768, but that being a Protestant Dissenter, no entry was made of his baptism in any register." And Mary Orme swore that " she was aunt to Wm. Fowden Jun., and well remembered that he was born in the beginning of April, and before the 15th day of that month in the year 1768." And the error assigned was that it appeared in the record, &c. that Wm. Fowden Jun., on Friday in the aforesaid session at Chester, appeared by attorney and warranted the tenements, &e. to E. (the tenant), &c.: but that Wm. Fowden [110] Jun. was then an infant within the age of 21 years, viz. 20 years and no more. And on joinder in error, the issue was, "Whether Wm. Fowden, the Younger, at the time of his appearance and warranty, and voucher to warranty, and also at the time of the giving of the said judgment (of recovery) was an infant within the age of 21 years, to wit, of the age of 20 years and no more." At the trial at Chester it appeared that Wm. Fowden Jun. died on the 31st of December 1792, having before made his will, and Wm. Fowden, Sen. the father, died on the 20th of March 1806; but Mary Orme, the aunt, was still living, and examined as a witness by the defendant in support of the fact as sworn to in her affidavit; but the accuracy of her recollection as to the precise day of her nephew's birth was rendered doubtful by circumstances which came out upon cross-examination. And on the part of the plaintiffs it was, amongst other things, proved by a neighbour that Wm. Fowden, the father, and his wife, lived at Bramhall, where William, the son was born ; that it was on a Friday. That he was desired by the father to fetch Mr. Hewitt, the man-midwife, who lived at Stockport, about three miles and a half distant: the witness, however, had occasion to go elsewhere, and another person was sent to Mr. Hewitt, and on the witness's return the same evening Mrs. Fowden was brought to bed of a son. That the wife of Eichard Fellows, who lived half a mile off, was also delivered on the same day. The person who was sent to Mr. Hewitt's corroborated this account, and knew young Fellows and young Fowden as they grew up, who appeared about the same age. Another witness also proved the birth of young Fowden, on a Friday (the particular day of the week was proved [111] by reference to market-day and other collateral circumstances by the several witnesses), and that he saw Mr. Hewitt at Fowden's house. Fellows, the son also proved his growing up with Wm. Fowden, the son; that "they used to dispute which was the eldest; but they were both born on the same day; and he had been told this by Fowden's father and mother. His own birth-day was on the 22nd of April. Other witnesses also deposed to the same effect. John Hewitt was then called, the son of the man-midwife 718 HIGHAM V. RIDGWAY 10 EAST, 112. who...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Sussex Peerage
...interested in misrepresenting facts to support the marriage, but believed himself to have an interest the other way. In Higham v. Ridgway (10 East, 109), where the question of the date of a birth arose, a paper was offered in evidence which purported to contain an entry of a charge of atten......
-
Bridget and Papendick against William Bridgwater
...he was only tenant for a less estate, and that what is said to be decided by the learned Judge in that case is not law. Higham v. Ridgway (10 East, 109) was not the case of a tenant. Roe dem. Brune v. Rawlings (7 East, 279) has been shewn by my brother Coleridge to rest on a different princ......
-
The Sussex Peerage
...interest the other way ; and such entries (a) See the Berkeley Peerage case, 4 Camp. 401, and other cases cited in Roscoe N.P. Ev. 48. (b) 10 East, 109. 93] The Sussex Peerage Claim, 1844. [94 against the interest of the parties making them are clearly evidence .of the fact stated, ou . the......
-
R v Birmingham Overseers
...mean those in which declarations agaiust pecuniary interest have been held admissible. The principal of these [766] is Higham v. Ridgway (10 East, 109), where an entry of the delivery of a woman, made in his books by an accoucheur, was held admissible to prove not only the fact but the time......
-
Table of cases
...212 Hess v Thomas Estate, 2019 SKCA 26 ................................................................ 273 Higham v Ridgway (1808), 103 ER 717 (KB) ............................................... 209–10 Histed v Law Society of Manitoba, 2007 MBCA 150, leave to appeal ref’d [2008] SCCA No 6......
-
Hearsay
...267 All declarations against interest were supposed to stand on the “same footing.” However, scepticism about 264 Higham v Ridgway (1808), 103 ER 717 (KB). 265 Lucier v R , [1982] 1 SCR 28 at 32 [ Lucier ]. 266 Rule 804(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Evidence in the United States admits decl......
-
Table of Cases
...(2005), 210 B.C.A.C. 264, 40 B.C.L.R. (4th) 152, 2005 BCCA 188 ........................ 251 Higham v. Ridgway (1808), 10 East. 109, 103 E.R. 717 (K.B.) ........................... 162 Histed v. Law Society of Manitoba (2007), [2008] 2 W.W.R. 189, 49 C.P.C. (6th) 257, 2007 MBCA 150, leave to......
-
Hearsay Exceptions
...thorough review of this issue, see Alberta (Public Trustee) v. Walker (1981), 122 D.L.R. (3d) 411 (Alta. C.A.). 145 Ibid . at 439. 146 (1808), 103 E.R. 717 (K.B.). 152 The law of Evidence 7.2) Declarations against Penal Interest A declaration against penal interest may be admitted where: 1)......